You honestly think we'd have done just as well over these past 5 games with Blake in there instead of Miller? I think you're crazy. Miller was the second best player on the team over this stretch. I also think too much has been made of Blake's ability to spread the floor, and too little of Miller's ability to create for teammates. When Blake starts, you basically just have to tell your guard to stay close enough to him to bother three pointers. Otherwise, ignore him. Do everything you can to contain Roy. Everything runs through Roy. Contain Roy and you contain the offense. When Miller starts, Portland is a much more difficult team to game plan. Contain Roy, but don't ignore Miller because he'll score in the post, drive for a foul or make a smart cut to the hoop for an easy pass. But don't focus too much on Miller, because Roy will kill you from pretty much anywhere. I don't think it's a coincidence that Roy's shooting percentage has actually risen. He's getting better shots because Miller has made the offense much less predictable.
Given our dearth of offensive players, no. Blake is a system player, Miller is a better player individually, and given that we are so short, Miller is better than Blake right now, But I think it would be just as well with Bayless over Miller - he would not be as consistent as Miller is, but when he is good - we win at a higher clip. At the start of the year, when we did have all the offensive players - yes, I think Blake would have been just as well playing over Miller. My argument is that Bayless is the guy I want to concentrate on, as the 2nd guard next to Roy, not Miller.
That's just an absurd point. I'm sure you realized it as you typed it. That we're even close to having as many assist/game this year is amazing, given the roster. Who said he's irreplaceable? Who said he's great? Who said he's the missing piece?
my contention was with your claim that "he doesn't provide a skill that is important to this team." That is considerably overstating matters and it seems you're backing off that claim without acknowledging that you are doing so. He is far better then Blake which the statistical data reflects and my eyes confirm. I'm with BNM on this one STOMP
I am late to this thread - and as others have already mentioned - but, as soon as I read this post above this thought jumps to front and center: SMALL SAMPLE SIZE. Your ability to draw definitive conclusions about roster composition moving forward based on results from such a small sample size are magical. Don't kid yourself into thinking you have legit evidence to support your positions. You don't. Just say it: I want to feature Bayless moving forward. He is the future, Miller is not. The rest is made up at this point.
andalusian has nicely proven that Andre Miller is a bad GM, who cannot build winning teams with his abilities to draft, trade for and sign players. This is clearly andalusian's aim, since we know he's logical enough to understand that team success is a silly measure of a single player. So I agree with andalusian...let's not make Andre Miller the team's GM. Let's just give him the vast majority of the point guard minutes.
I'm much more torn on Bayless than I was a few weeks ago. Back then I wanted him to get all the minutes possible. Maybe even start him. But a couple of things have changed: -Roy's improving performance/FG% over the five game stretch -Martell averaging 18 ppg on 48% shooting over the same span -That recent end of game situation where we ran the same isolation play over and over for Roy and Bayless and squandered a win while Miller rotted on the bench. I'm just not sure we'd have been as good a team over this period with Bayless starting instead of Miller. I could live with a small dropoff for the sake of player development, but I think it might be more of a risk than that, and I don't want to risk missing the playoffs. Especially while we're already making huge strides with another youngster in Webster. Webster just looks so much more confident out there. I wonder if Miller is giving him some pointers or something out on the floor. For the first time ever, he just looks like a guy who knows what he's doing out there. It could be pure coincidence that he's playing this way as Miller plays a more lead role, but maybe not.
I've honestly never once heard anybody call Miller a star or "the missing piece" (here or anywhere else) ... what he is however, is much better point guard than Steve Blake as far as facilitating offense and getting the team going and his on-court/off-court numbers suggest the team scores more and gives up fewer points when he's on the floor than Steve. So for now and the next year I guess I'd rather see him getting comfortable with his teammates, starting and have a guy like Bayless backing him up and improving his ability to play the position, versus trading him and trying to make it work with Steve and Jerryd. Another issue for me goes beyond Andre's floor contributions; assuming Jerryd is the heir apparent (?) to take over the starting point guard spot in a year or two, I think Andre just has more to teach a somewhat raw Jerryd than Steve does, just because both players seem to be at their best when they attack off the dribble versus spotting up and shooting -- and that doesn't mean Andre is going to take Jerryd under his wing and mentor him, but there is something to be learned just by watching and playing off of somebody.
The way Webster has been balling lately, I'm not sure Aldridge is a lock for the "Big Three" label. Man, I had completely given up on Martell. Just occurred to me that our only consistent low post player is our PG.
I would've agreed with you as recently as maybe two weeks ago. Now I'm not so sure. We all just have to keep repeating to ourselves: He's only 23. He's only 23. He's only 23. He's only 23. He's only 23. He's only 23. He's only 23. He's only 23. He's only 23. Raw high schoolers often take longer to emerge. 5 years is on the very slow side of it, especially for a wing. But if we'd drafted him this year instead of 5 years ago, I think a lot of us would be more excited about this kid.
I hear what you're saying, but I wonder if the correlation between his individual success and the lack of team success is both more situational and evolutionary. Situational because of the injuries and introduction to a new team. Evolutionary because of how his role has developed over the season. With more time with this team and some stability, it makes sense that Miller will play even more in tune with the team while playing at a high level closer to the Playoffs and next season. McMillan's teams have a way of bringing out the best in his players.
Of course the goal is to win more games. You continue to misuse a single stat to "prove" Miller doesn't help his teams win. I really don't feel like typing it all up again and updating it for the two games since (split with Lakers and Cavs). So, here again is the more comprehensive data (not just a single misused stat) to show that Miller is better statistically AND helps the team more than Blake: If you look at several additional stats, you start to see the whole picture: PER (from basketball-refernce.com): Blake = 9.9 Miller = 15.7 Bayless = 14.7 Advantage Miller Production vs. Opponents (from 82games.com): Blake: OWN = 11.0, OPP = 14.2, NET = -3.2 Miller: OWN = 16.4, OPP = 14.8, NET = +1.6 Bayless: OWN = 16.4, OPP = 16.2, NET = +0.2 Advantage Miller Win Shares (from basketball-refernce.com): Blake = 1.5 Miller = 2.4 Bayless = 1.3 Advantage Miller Net Points Per 100 Possessions (from 82games.com): Blake: On Court +4.8, Off Court +5.8, Net -1.5 Miller: On Court +6.9, Off Court +2.3, Net +4.7 Bayless: On Court +7.5, Off Court +3.9, Net +3.6 Advantage Miller Even though Blake has played more minutes than Miller (59% vs. 57%), the team has outscored their opponents by more (+107 points vs. +72 points) when Miller is on the floor than when Blake is. For the sake of completeness, Bayless has played less than half as many minutes as Blake or Miller (27%) and the team net scoring is +50 points when he's in the game (comparable to Miller's +107 points in 57% of the team's minutes). Also, the team record with Miller starting is 15-6 (now 16-7). With him not starting, it's 7-9. This may be the most important stat of all in Miller's favor - and the ONE stat you think Nate would care most about. I could continue to site many more stats that show Miller produces more individually than Bayless (slightly) and Blake (greatly) AND that the team does better with Miller on the court, but hopefully this will be enough to get a general overall view of individual and team production for the three players in question. I really don't think you need all these fancy stats to see that Miller is a better player than Steve Blake. The comparison between Bayless and Miller is much closer, but still slightly in Miller's favor. A good coach WILL adapt his syetem to the strengths of his personel. There is a difference between fitting in and being "featured". Joel "fits in" but he's hardly "featured " in the Blazers offense (when healthy, of course). Miller and Roy seem to be fitting quite well in the backcourt now that they are finally starting togther at their best natural positions. Too bad we had to loose half the team to injury before Nate would even TRY starting them togther in the backcourt. Both, and it's not even close. There is no disputing that Miller's individual stats are much better than Blake's. There is also no disputing that the team scores more and gives up fewer points when Miller is on the court than when Blake is. Miller's WinScore also trumps Blakes by a wide margin. You have also compared Andre Miler to Zach Randolph as a player who puts up good stats, but doesn't help his team win. If Andre Miller is such a team wrecking cancer, how does he have, by a substantial margin, the highest assist rate on the team? His AST% is 29.0 compared to Blake's 18.9. Why are both Roy AND Webster shooting the ball MUCH better now that they are starting with Miller at PG? Could it possibly be that he does a good job setting up his teammates and geting them good, open looks that they can knock down at a high percentage? I've already mentioned Miller's impact on the 76ers (0.240 before he arrives, 0.500 while he was there and 0.294 after he left with no other significant roster changes). So, you want to talk about his impact in Denver? Sure, why not. The season before he arrived in Denver they won 17 games. In addition to Miller, they also added Carmelo Anthony and proceeded to win 43 games - a 26-game improvement. Sure a lot of credit goes to Carmelo, but there is no way the rookie Carmelo all by himself takes a team from 17 wins to 43. Hell the Cavs added LeBron that same year and they only went from 17 wins to 35 and the year the Blazers added Brondon Roy AND LaMarcus Aldridge, they only improved from 21 wins to 32. So, Andre Miller should get some credit for Denver's 26-game improvement. The next year, the Nuggets further improved to win 49 games. The following year, the team has some injuries and regressed to 44 wins. The following December the Nuggets traded Miller to Philadelphia for Allen Iverson. I've already mentioned Miller's impact on the 76ers (from 0.240 to 0.510 that season). What about the Nuggets? They were 11-7 when they traded Miller. That's a 50-win pace. They ended up winning 45 games after adding Allen Iversoon AND Steve Blake. In Cleveland, the Cavs won 22 games the year before drafting Miller. They won 32 games his rookie season. A 10 game improvement. And this is somehow Miller's fault? He was not allowed to start in the backcourt with Roy until very recently - and only then after half the team was lost to injuries. I have never claimed Miller was our savior, and quite frankly, I have never read anyone else say so in this forum. He's not a superstar. Nobody is claiming he is. What he is is an above average starting PG, which makes him much, much better than this year's version fo Steve Blake. You seem obsessed with "people" claiming Miller is better than he is. I just haven't seen those posts. The problem is your long term pattern shows that Miller has a carfeer won/loss percentage of around 0.500. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is you continuing to ignore how bad those teams were before Miller arrived. When a single player turns a 0.240 team into a 0.510 team, that's a significant impact. Yes, that's still barely a 0.500 team, but the results are far, far better than before Miller arrived. Really??? He has a team leading AST% of 29%. How does that not help this team - especially now that we are missing so many key offenseive players (Oden, Outlaw, Rudy, etc.)? Since when is creating easy scoring opportunites for your teammates NOT a skill that is important to this team? BNM
In before kingspeed's win/loss comment. It sucks that we can't realistically compare numbers from early in the season to now due to the ever-changing team dynamics due to injuries. As far as Roy and Miller goes, I definitely agree with the OP.
Nice post. I believe it was at around this point in the last thread you posted this in where he bailed on the discussion, as opposed to choosing to dispute any stat you listed.
Thanks. And for all his talk about Miller not making the team better, they are winning games with Miller starting and playing big minutes in spite of the team being decimated by injuries. Since Miller was promoted to starting PG, the Blazers are 9-5, despite a extremely tough schedule - and the previously mentioned depleted line-up. During those 14 games, he is 2nd or 3rd in minutes played (running neck and neck with Martell), leads the team in assists and is second in total points scored. Roy deserves the lion's share of the credit, but without Andre Miller, who has been our second best player over those 14 games, the Blazers would not have won 9 of 14. Anyone who thinks the team is underachieving, in spite of the injuries, and that Miller is not helping them win, needs to look at the reality of the situation. Considering were are missing Batum, Outlaw, Oden, Przybilla and Rudy for all of those games, Roy and Aldridge both missed a game (almost two in Aldridge's case) and Blake was also out for multiple games, and we had an extremely tough road trip, and played the two best teams in the league over the weekend, it's a damn miracle that the team has won 9 of those 14 games. Does Andre Miller not deserve ANY credit for his part in those wins? For those bashing Andre's defense, name one time in the last 14 games the Blazers have been killed by an opposing PG. Miller has been holding some of the best PGs in the game at, or below their scoring averages. In fact, unless you consider Monta Ellis a PG (he's really a SG), there hasn't been a single opposing PG score more than 17 points agianst the Blazers in the last 14 games. Steve Nash (16), Jason Kidd (3), Tony Parker (16), Chauncy Billups (10), Lois Williams (9), Baron Davis (15, 12), Mike Conley (7) and Mo Williams (16) all scored below their season scoring averages against the Blazers. So Miller scores more than Blake, gets more assists, holds his opponent to fewer points AND the team is winning in spite of a decimated roster and a very tough schedule. How anyone can claim Andre Miller is a poor fit and doesn't help this team win is beyond me. Perhaps some posters had unrealistic expectations. Perhaps they expected Andre Miller to be a superstar. He's not, but he's producing and the team is winning. Given the injury situation and schedule, I'll take that gladly. BNM
I don't mean this as a slam on andalusian, as I've been guilty of this myself in the past, but I think he's arguing from an emotional standpoint. I think he just really likes and respects Blake (which I can understand), thinks Blake gets short shrift and is therefore going a bit overboard in defense of Blake. I normally try not to dabble in pop-psychology, but I am trying to reconcile andalusian's normally very well-reasoned positions with this somewhat baffling refusal, against the vast majority of evidence, to agree that Miller does more for the Blazers than Blake.
It is very simple. Look at the player, and ask yourself if you see that player being a starter on a championship caliber team down the line, which is the goal, is it not? If the answer is no, then that is all you need to know.
With our current active roster, the ONLY player that meets that criteria, without a doubt, is Brandon Roy. You could make an argument for, or against Aldridge. The fact is, you have to do your best with what you are given, and right now, that's not much compared to what it was a couple months ago. You just have to try to keep winning with the guys who are healthy and hope you can hold out until some of the injured players get back. Winning the title this season is not realistic. Making the play-offs is. Getting past the first round without a center is unlikely, but it's not impossible and should be this season's adjusted goal. Next year, when the team is hopefully healthy, we can revist the "is he a starter on a championship team" question. I never viewed Miller as the long term solution at PG, just an upgrade that could hold down the spot for a season until Bayless is more ready, slide into the back-up role when Bayless has proven he is ready to be a full time starter, and then either excercise or decline his team option accordingly. Given the structure of his contract, that seems like it was KP's intent as well when he signed Miller. BNM
